Two slit experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 08:44 On Jun 5, 10:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 5:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/3/10 1:34 PM, rick_s wrote: > > > > A photon is not a little piece of dust. It is a wave packet. It has some > > > length to it. It is a wave. A short wave. So? Cut it in half and you have > > > two waves. Make a small enough effect and it will interfere with itself. > > > > People are sure stuck on this notion that matter is like little pieces of > > > rock. It has never ever been shown to exist in that way. > > >   These are misunderstandings on your part, rick_s. > > >   Background on the Photon > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties > > --------------------- > see the end of your quote: > > quote (a quote from your quote ) > > to very high precision.[19]  A null result of such an experiment has > set a limit of mâ²10â14 eV.[20] > > Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to > detect effects caused by the Galactic vector potential. Although the > galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic > field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is > observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the > mass term \scriptstyle\frac{1}{2} m^2 A_{\mu}A^{\mu} would affect the > galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an > upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3Ã10â27 eV.[21] The galactic > vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque > exerted on a magnetized ring.[22] Such methods were used to obtain the > sharper upper limit of 10â18eV given by the Particle Data Group.[23] > > These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by > the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent. > [24] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the > upper limit of mâ²10â14 eV from the test of Coulomb's law is valid. > > ------------ > end of quote!! > i ddint need that quote > i Proved that the photon has mass > *the  only mass that exist!! > the mass of photon i suggested is > about  exp -90  Kilogram !! > > and  energy of the real **single* photon > about  exp-70 Joule > (based on the Plank time  multiplying h !! ) > and > (energy /c = mass) > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ I'm still hoping that someone will take my thought experiment seriously. What I said was not complicated. There are two rocks and they are both in motion relative to the universe, but they are staionary with respect to each other. Assume that they are accelerating. Call them Rock A and Rock B. For both of these rocks, they could be regarded as being in a gravity field, or they could be regarded as acceleration through space. Rock A and rock B can be separated by ANY distance. If you test rock A and find that it is accelerating then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" about rock b. If you test rock A and find that it is in a gravitational field then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" about rock b.
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 09:04 On 6/6/10 7:39 AM, Huang wrote: > Working language or not, mathematics is structured reasoning based on > a certain philosophy. And the cantral "assumption" is that things > either exist or they do not - there is no middle ground. And the laws of conservation of momentum, angular momentum, energy, etc. hold true.
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 09:12 On 6/6/10 7:44 AM, Huang wrote: > There are two rocks and they are both in motion relative to the > universe, but they are staionary with respect to each other. Assume > that they are accelerating. Call them Rock A and Rock B. "Motion relative to the universe"???? The universe is everything, including two rocks. Whether a rock is in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of an observer. Let's be a bit more precise--assume two rocks. With respect to each other: x > 0 v = dx/dt = 0 and accelerating? dv/dt ≠ 0
From: Sue... on 6 Jun 2010 09:54 On Jun 6, 8:44 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ============ > > I'm still hoping that someone will take my thought experiment > seriously. What I said was not complicated. > > There are two rocks and they are both in motion relative to the > universe, but they are staionary with respect to each other. This seems to work that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.gif > Assume that they are accelerating. Assumptions don't exert forces. You have to be more specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration > Call them Rock A and Rock B. Hello Rock A. Hello Rock B. So nice to meet both of you. :-) > > For both of these rocks, they could be regarded as being in a gravity > field, or they could be regarded as acceleration through space. No they can't be regarded both ways because you can be more specific about what you mean by acceleration You want to be taken seriously, remember? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29#Torque_and_rotation Sue... > Rock A > and rock B can be separated by ANY distance. If you test rock A and > find that it is accelerating then you have "spooky instantanoues > knowledge" about rock b. If you test rock A and find that it is in a > gravitational field then you have "spooky instantanoues knowledge" > about rock b.
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 10:46
"Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fde6942d-c330-40ca-ba78-5a24d030e18b(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/5/10 8:59 AM, Huang wrote: >> >> >> >> > Western science has a very heavy bias in favor of seeking models which >> > are deterministic... >> >> One of the biggest pillars of modern physics is anything but >> deterministic! >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics > > > Yes - I know. Probability theory based on random variables. But you > didn't address the indeterminacy (ahem, generality) which is inherent > to the very concept of "number". There is none > Why should I believe that probability theory is the only source of > indeterminacy when numbers themselves are so nondescript (ahem, > "general) that they might safely be regarded as employing > indeterminacy themselves. They aren't |